General Counsel Services: Preventing Criminal Liability

1. General Counsel Services Washington: Regulatory Framing of the Investigation

Washington state law imposes detailed safety obligations on employers, and investigations are conducted under both state safety regulations and OSHA-parallel rules. In this matter, the Washington Department of Labor & Industries(L&I) immediately focused on whether the employer had complied with protective-equipment requirements and training obligations.The investigation centered on whether the company failed to provide suitable gloves and whether mandatory safety education had been inadequately administered.

Evaluating Safety Regulations in Context

General Counsel Services Washington: Regulatory Framing of the Investigation

Although the complainant cited a rule requiring tight-fitting leather gloves for rotating machinery, the defense emphasized the actual design of the food-processing grinder.

The device was engineered so operators must use tools—such as paddles or ladles—rather than their hands to insert material.

Thick leather gloves, or gloves not tightly fitted, can themselves increase the risk of entanglement.

This analysis helped demonstrate that the cited rule did not apply to this machine’s operation and that strict adherence could have increased danger, not reduced it.

Demonstrating Fully Functioning Safety Equipment

L&I also examined whether the grinder contained the required power-cutoff switch.

Using photos, purchase documentation, and inspection records, the defense established that the machine came equipped with a clearly marked red OFF switch that functioned normally both before and after the incident.

Showing that the employer met design-based safety requirements helped establish that any injury did not stem from an equipment failure attributable to the company.

2. General Counsel Services Washington: Strategic Use of Civil Litigation Findings

Before the criminal investigation began, the injured employee had already pursued a civil suit seeking multimillion-dollar damages. The defense’s earlier work in that action became invaluable.The civil court had found that the employer either had no negligence or at most minimal fault due to strong evidence of safety training and documented operational instructions.

Leveraging Prior Judicial Findings

The defense submitted the civil judgment and its supporting exhibits, including training logs, signed attendance sheets, photographs of completed safety sessions, and written operating manuals, to the criminal investigators.

Because Washington courts require consistency between administrative, civil, and criminal factual determinations, these materials carried substantial persuasive value.

They demonstrated that a judicial body had already concluded the employer met key safety-training obligations.

Reinforcing the Employer’S Training Program

Beyond civil-court findings, the general counsel team emphasized the strength of the employer’s internal compliance program.

The safety system included:

Documented training cycles for machine operation
Written standard operating procedures
Records of employee acknowledgement
Photographic evidence of on-site instruction

These materials showed sustained adherence to workplace-safety duties and helped prevent prosecutors from establishing the negligence element required for criminal liability.

3. General Counsel Services Washington: Establishing the Lack of Causation

In Washington criminal law, the prosecution must prove not only a regulatory deviation but that the employer’s conduct was the direct cause of the injury.The defense’s strategy highlighted that even if a rule were technically interpreted as applicable, the alleged violation did not constitute the immediate or exclusive cause of the accident. The defense combined engineering analysis, operational design, and workflow evaluations to demonstrate that the grinder’s configuration—not employer negligence—led to the employee’s unsafe hand placement.Because the machine was designed for tool-based feeding rather than manual insertion, the nature of the employee’s action appeared to deviate from prescribed procedures.This analysis broke the causal link and significantly weakened the prosecution’s theory of liability.

General Counsel Services'S Outcome and Compliance Lessons

Ultimately, the employer received a non-prosecution determination.

The integrated strategy—spanning regulatory interpretation, equipment-design evidence, and civil-litigation alignment—played a decisive role.

A central lesson is the importance of ensuring that statements, documents, and evidentiary submissions remain consistent across civil, administrative, and criminal stages.

Coordinated document management and early integrated defense planning prevent contradictions that could otherwise be used to support liability.

03 Dec, 2025